An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Report: Canada PM Aide Said Clinton Campaign Gave Assurances On NAFTA

One of the late breaking issues that hurt Democratic Senator Barack Obama in recent Texas and Ohio primaries involved allegations that his campaign gave winking private assurances to Canada not to worry about his anti-Nafta campaign rhetoric — a controversy the Clinton camp used to it’s advantage. But now it turns out that the allegation focused more on Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Yet, the pre-Ohio primary stories only focused on the Obama campaign, not the Clinton campaign — which used it against Obama in Ohio. The Globe and Mail reports:

If the Prime Minister is seeking the first link in the chain of events that has rocked the U.S. presidential race, he need look no further than his chief of staff, Ian Brodie, The Canadian Press has learned.

A candid comment to journalists from CTV News by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s most senior political staffer during the hurly-burly of a budget lock-up provided the initial spark in what the American media are now calling NAFTAgate.

Mr. Harper announced Wednesday that he has asked an internal security team to begin finding the source of a document leak that he characterized as being “blatantly unfair” to Senator Barack Obama.

And here is what reportedly happened:

“Quite a few people heard it,” said one source in the room.

“He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton’s campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry.”

Government officials did not deny the conversation took place.

They said that Mr. Brodie sought to allay concerns about the impact of Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton’s assertion that they would re-negotiate NAFTA if elected. But they did say that Mr. Brodie had no recollection of discussing any specific candidate — either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama.

TPM reacts:

The NAFTA-Gate controversy has taken another turn, one that could potentially boomerang back on Hillary Clinton after initially damaging Barack Obama.

The Canadian Press — Canada’s domestic equivalent of the AP — is reporting that the original source of the leak was Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. And as it turns out, Brodie’s original conversation with reporters focused much more on Hillary as the candidate whose people were reassuring Canada that the anti-trade rhetoric was all just campaign talk.

…Hillary’s people were able to use NAFTA-Gate very effectively in questioning Obama’s honesty in the Ohio and Texas campaigns, ultimately pulling off some decent wins. But if this thing doesn’t die down, and the focus turns from Obama over to Hillary, they could very well see the story come back to bite them.

TPM also has an updated that notes that the Clinton camp has denied this quickly from the start, while “the Obama campaign was much slower to respond — possibly explaining why he got the worst of it in terms of publicity.”

There are all kinds of implications to this story. Will the Obama campaign will now use this latest report to use on Clinton? Will the Canadian and American press now try to figure out why the story became and remained Obama, with very little (if anything) in most stories about any assurances from the Clinton camp? How could that happen?

It was a story that suggested the Obama campaign was just one more political operation and “felt” true to most voters. So it did bring Obama’s “mystique” down. It provided lots of negative press for Obama and ammunition for the Clinton campaign.

Asks Andrew Sullivan: “Will the press take this back to the Clinton campaign? Or is the one unvetted candidate in this race going to get a pass again?”

The Carpetbagger Report’s Steve Benen:

So, let me get this straight. If this report is right, the Clinton campaign gave assurances to the Canadians not to worry about her rhetoric on NAFTA. The Clinton campaign then spent a week hammering Obama on alleged assurances to Canadians about his rhetoric on NAFTA?

Based on reporting from the Canadian Press (what is effectively the Canadian AP), Ian Brodie chatted with reporters about Obama and Clinton, but somehow, the story only ended up focusing on the prior, not the latter.

In a larger sense, the political damage is done. But there is a lesson for campaigns. Bill Clinton & Co. learned from Governor Michael Dukakis’ snail-paced response to charges that they needed a war room to respond INSTANTLY. Senator John Kerry forgot the lesson in 2000. Obama forgot the lesson here. And Obama should be ready to respond, since Clinton is getting published campaign strategy advice now from Karl Rove.

  • pacatrue
    Well, the supporter response of both camps is obvious.

    If you like Clinton, 1) suddenly, this is no big deal and does not reveal anything significant about honesty and pandering, and 2) it's more important to talk about Obama in this matter, because he says he's a new kind of politician, while we know that Clinton panders and lies as a traditional politician (though it won't be put exactly that way). This will recall the arguments that it's okay for Clinton to borrow phrases in a speech, while it's not for Obama, because people think Obama's a good speaker and we know Clinton's a lousy one (unfair to Clinton). Finally, 3) while there was no need to wait for proof for the charges against Obama, there will suddenly be a need to wait for more information now.

    On the Obama side, suddenly supporters will declare that 1) this shows there's a clear Clinton bias in the Press (see Sullivan's quote), 2) for some, suddenly these assurances will reveal something about the candidate's personality, and 3) while further evidence was needed before concluding what happened with Obama, this single article will now be plenty of evidence against Clinton.

    With all that out of the way, the Clinton campaign will need to take a huge hypocrisy pill for accusing the Obama camp (recall the "breaking news" ad from the Clinton campaign that Joe linked to a couple days ago) of something they themselves did (possibly).
  • pacatrue
    I'm fascinated that no one has commented on this post. I thought this was going to be one of those 42 comment posts where first Obama supporters jump in attacking Clinton, Clinton supporters respond with name-calling of Obama supporters, and then a brawl ensues.

    Guess not. Doesn't bode well for Obama. If no one cares about this version of the story, then Obama is left with last week's narrative as the complete one.
  • Cupples
    Joe,

    The ALLEGATION might have been aimed at Clinton, but the MEMO (i.e., the evidence) spotlighted Obama. When the Canadian government shows us a memo re: a conversation with Clinton (which it might still do), then we'll have something to chew on. Right now, there's nothing substantiated.
  • elrod
    But the memo doesn't say what Clinton claims it says. The real memo from Goulsbee was that Obama would change environmental and labor issues in NAFTA - something he's said on the campaign trail too. It never said that Obama was just winking at changing NAFTA for political consumption and had no intention of following up.

    Think about what happened here. Ian Brodie gets a call from a Clinton campaign official saying "Don't listen to the anti-NAFTA stuff. It's all just politics." Brodie mentions the call to a bunch of people. CTV picks up on it and seeks confirmation. Clinton denies it. So CTV seeks Obama's position, which also challenges NAFTA. A Canadian consul seeks Obama's economic adviser in Chicago for comment. Goulsbee answers the Canadian consulate's request and reiterates Obama's stated position. The consul tells somebody in Harper's government that Obama was just winking on NAFTA and didn't really want to change it - or somebody took the consul's remarks and remade them into the "wink." The Harper government released the fraudulent "transcription" of Goulsbee's remarks, and CTV runs with the story. After Goulsbee calls CTV and says, "Wait a minute, I never said that," CTV, CBC and the Canadian opposition investigate. Within a day Harper himself admits the "memo" was a fraud, and was illegal for meddling in a US election. But for that first day, when CTV ran the story, Obama had no idea that CTV was going to run a fraudulent Goulsbee memo as fact. So he was caught off-guard, and that's when Hillary (and McCain) pounced.

    This was a disgusting display of media fraud, foreign meddling in our elections, shameless hypocrisy, and dishonesty on the part of the Harper government, CTV and most likely the Clinton campaign.

    I hope Brodie goes public with the Clinton campaign official. I'd love to hear the denials then.
  • chyrelle53
    What happened to this story? Why was the smear done on Obama all over the news, but this disappeared within a couple of hours? Does the corporate media have anything to do with it - the same ones who contribute to Hillary's campaign?
    I too am sickened by the hypocrisy of the Clinton campaign. She really learned the wrong lessons from the Bush years. I am saddened that my Democratic party, that I hoped was a little more ethical than the other side, is being dragged into the mud (to borrow Al Gore's phrase).
  • Cupples
    Elrod,

    I don't get what you're saying. The memo wasn't from Goolsbee, it was about Goolsbee's conversation with a Canadian consulate staffer's boss. The staffer memorialized it and the boss likely read it over and agreed that it was accurate before signing off on it (though I wasn't there).

    I don't understand the scenario that you describe. Brodie DIDN'T say that HE got a call from Clinton. Here are a few paragraphs from the Globe and Mail article that you are talking about:

    "At the end of an extended conversation, Mr. Brodie was asked about remarks aimed by the Democratic candidates at Ohio's anti-NAFTA voters that carried serious economic implications for Canada.

    "Since 75 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S., Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's musings about reopening the North American free-trade pact had caused some concern.

    "Mr. Brodie downplayed those concerns.

    "Quite a few people heard it,' said one source in the room.

    "He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."

    "Government officials did not deny the conversation took place."

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RT...
  • Marsh
    Nafta, the sequel http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortu...
    Obama has decided Nafta's not so bad after all. And about the campaign rhetoric he used in Ohio, just words.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC